Nathan Newman wrote:
>I remember meeting with Doug near his home a couple of years back and he
>noted that a few years earlier, we couldn't have sat at the cafe without
>being harassed by street people. He noted this as a sign of Guiliani's
>repression, but he also enjoyed his latte as well.
-Nathan, I wish you'd put your formidable skills to better use than -crafting left apologias for Democrats. I was stating a fact of NYC -life, but that doesn't mean I support sweeping the Upper West Side of -homeless people. That's a barbaric compounding of the U.S.'s already -barbaric treatment of the poor, and it makes me feel more than a bit -creepy to "enjoy" its results. Since mendicants are now largely gone -from the better neighborhoods, New Yorkers don't even have to think -about the dire state of many of their fellow city residents.
Of course it made you feel creepy- that's why you pointed it out to me.
But the fact that you at some level could enjoy the results should be a sign of what progressives need to address, if only with alternative policies. To have a policy on the left whose goal it is to make life less enjoyable is hardly a good strategy.
>Or is it a sign of progressive policy now to campaign for dangerous
streets?
-This is a nice touch - confounding the homeless with dangerous -criminals. How can you clear affluent neighborhoods of beggars -without being repressive? Does the cop smile nicely and offer an -apology as he pokes the homeless guy in the butt with his nightstick? -Is that the Green approach? Is it now progressive to support zero -tolerance, and stop talking about poverty and desperation?
How do you clear neighborhoods of beggars? How about affordable housing, health care and better funding of drug treatment and mental health centers-- all of which Green supports. My brother is schizophrenic and has been homeless on the streets repeatedly over the last decade or so, fighting with cops and getting jailed as they move him along. I don't support that at all, but frankly just leaving folks on the street doesn't help them either. There is little evidence that merely making the homeless visible actually supports better policies-- the homeless were extremely visible in much of the 1980s, yet housing support was slashed throughout the decade and even more viciously, the private real estate market terminated most of the SROs and other housing mechanisms that the homeless used to get off the streets periodically.
As to why I spend time defending Democrats, it's because marginal policy changes for better funding for housing, health care and employment support is far more important to the economically disenfranchised than defending the right of people to be permanently homeless on whatever street corner makes yuppies uncomfortable. Frankly, if Green can make those extra investments in funding for such services by promising folks on the Upper West side the comfort to sip their lattes in peace, it's not the best policy in the world but it's a tactical compromise that is better than what exists.
I don't support compromising more than is needed on principle, but I also don't support compromising less and therefore losing altogether. It is fight the moral superiority of losing on principle that makes me defend Democrats in tactical voting situations, even if I spend most of my activist time attacking those same folks in policy situations. But I've always been clear on my politics, vote for the best lesser evil candidate possible at a given time, then hold their feet to the fire of activism.
If Green is elected, he may keep his promises only if activists hold his feet to the fire, but just increasing the political likelihood of activism having that result is worth the vote.
And obviously unions, ACORN and a host of other folks who work day-in and day-out with the reality of poverty and joblessness make the same tactical decision.
-- Nathan Newman